Government Declares War On Your Wealth

[epan]

Originally Posted by ACCT

Get a bigger pie instead of redistributing an ever shrinking pie. Socialism destroys incentives to produce a bigger pie. The end result of socialism is a total collapse of the global economy that is now taking place, first in Europe and then in the United States. Remember that socialism denies God. There is no economic future without Jesus!

Socialism does not deny God. Capitalism does not proclaim God. They are economic systems. Socialism and communism have worked very well in villages throughout history. The modern incarnations of large states is a different story, more totalitarianism than socialism. Totalitarian governments place themselves into the position of being God, which they are not. This is part of the reason that they ultimately fail.

The pie is not shrinking. It is growing. Population is growing faster than the pie. Greedy people are being allowed to horde more than their fair share of the pie. More equitable distribution of wealth is not socialism. Even if it were socialism, there is nothing inherently evil about sharing some means of production, such as power utilities, or government infrastructure. I am not in favor of privatization of all schools, prisons, utilities, ports, roads. etc... Some things, like healthcare systems and highways, and military work better when in owned by the public.

[didymus]

Not true according to Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/debtfree.asp

Summary: The Obama administration has not proposed or recommended placing a 1% tax on all financial transactions. The idea of the 1% transaction tax stems from a bill repeatedly introduced by a single congressman which has no support from any other member of Congress and no chance of passing.
Origins: Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to
votes in the first place. The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the " Transform America Transaction Fee" and now refers to as the "Debt Free America Act").
In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-based system (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703). None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor.


[big snip]

• Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax." The proposal for the Debt Free America Act is purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.
• Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or has publicly supported it.
• The included link that supposedly shows Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedates the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually refer to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio. That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.)
• Later versions of this item opened with the statement that "ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?" The Social Security program is switching over to an electronic payments system, but that change is not scheduled to take place until 1 March 2013. As of that date, Social Security recipients will have the option of receiving their benefits payments either through direct deposit to a bank account or via the reloading of a debit card. This change has nothing to do with the Congessional bill discussed above.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by epan

Socialism does not deny God. Capitalism does not proclaim God. They are economic systems. Socialism and communism have worked very well in villages throughout history. The modern incarnations of large states is a different story, more totalitarianism than socialism. Totalitarian governments place themselves into the position of being God, which they are not. This is part of the reason that they ultimately fail.

The pie is not shrinking. It is growing. Population is growing faster than the pie. Greedy people are being allowed to horde more than their fair share of the pie. More equitable distribution of wealth is not socialism. Even if it were socialism, there is nothing inherently evil about sharing some means of production, such as power utilities, or government infrastructure. I am not in favor of privatization of all schools, prisons, utilities, ports, roads. etc... Some things, like healthcare systems and highways, and military work better when in owned by the public.

Apparently the pie is not growing fast enough, since the Federal government spends $4 billion more every day of the year than it takes in. The total national debt continues to rise, now approaching $15 trillion. There is no growth scenario, no tax scenario, no redistribution scenario, under which it can be repaid.

Fertility rates in Europe are decreasing, resulting in an aging population with a decreasing population of workers and taxpayers. Depopulation is a grave threat.

One might tax everyone earning more than $1 million at 100% without making a dent in the fiscal and debt crisis.

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by epan

It has reached the point of obscenity. We need to solve the income distribution problem. We know that minimizing the difference benefits rich and poor alike. By every measure, the wealthiest are in better shape in economies with lesser income gaps, and also the poor and middle class are in better shape. It doesn't matter whether the mechanism is limiting income (Japan), or high taxes (Sweden). The US, with the largest gap, ranks the lowest on every social measure: average educational achievement, social mobility, every measure of health including longevity and infant mortality, child welfare by every standard known. This holds true for the rich and the poor.

What do you propose as an ethical solution?

Most countries do not allow unlimited illegal immigration by people with no education like the U.S. does. People with little or no education have low social mobility, especially if they can't speak the language of the host country.

"Longevity" is a statistical thing that can fool one who doesn't realize that the older a person or population gets, the longer is his or its life expectancy. That's just a statistical thing based on the fact that no matter how old a person is, he still has a statistical life expectancy, while, say, a 10 year old has a whole lifetime of hazards to go through. A 100 year old person's life expectancy is always greater than a 10 year old's, no matter what. So, older populations always have greater life expectancies than do younger ones. Europe and Japan are very agey socities compared to the U.S. And, of course, in a society that has a 1.3 birth rate per woman like Japan or Italy (ours is 2.1) it's easier to provide for child welfare, and especially when the highest birth rates in the U.S. are among recent arrivals who, by and large, are poorly educated and have problems communicating.

But, on the whole, is it better to have a population that's doomed to collapse because few children are being born? I, for one, don't think so.

[Crescentinus]

I think that part of the war against wealth is the Occupy Movements. They at least seem to antagonize those who disagree with them and have more money than them.

[septimine]

Originally Posted by ACCT

We are way past your ideas on welafare. Socialism and welfare were tried in a big way in 1933 by President FDR and by President Johnson. All those welfare programs were failures. We are now paying for those failures with the permanent collapse of the global economy and the theft of your wealth by government.

If resources were infinite, no one would have to make choices. There would no economics if there were no scarcity. There would be no economy. No one would have to decide who produces what, or who consumes what. Our little minds cannot fathom the concept of the infinite because everything in our experience is finite. We all have to make choices.

Pope Leo XIII's On Socialism: He starts off by referring to socialism as a "deadly plague". It is not a long piece and very clearly explains the evils of this movement.

As a follow up, I recommend Rerum Novarum, also by Pope Leo XIII.
The Holy Fathers have always addressed social ills in their encyclicals and if you ever have questions, you can easily find answers in their writings.

I'm not talking about socialism -- I'm talking about Christians and private charities doing those kinds of things that we've ceded to the government. The government is only needed because nothing else is there. At least not on the scale required to replace the welfare programs. I don't think socialism is a good thing, but it came to be because the churches were not taking care of the poor.

There's sort of a false "religion" if you like around the government. The idea is of course that any time "the people" act, that it means government. It's not true. The government is a tool of the people, it is not the people. The people can use a different tool to fix these problems -- but unless we deal with the issues, I think we're going to create chaos by pulling the rug out from under the people stuck on welfare. It's not reasonable to replace welfare with nothing. We should replace welfare with a system of private and religious charities, but I don't think we should throw millions of welfare recipients out on the streets with no hope and no skills and no way to get what they need to survive.

[ACCT]

My friends,

In the last week or two, I have heard frequently from you that the current financial mess has been caused by the failures of free markets and deregulation. I have heard from you that the lust after profits, any profits, that is central to free markets is at the core of our problems. And I have heard from you that only significant government intervention into financial markets can cure these problems, perhaps once and for all. I ask of you for the next few minutes to, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, consider that you may be mistaken. Consider that both the diagnosis and the cure might be equally mistaken.


Consider instead that the problems of this mess were caused by the very kinds of government regulation that you now propose. Consider instead that effects of the profit motive that you decry depend upon the incentives that institutions, regulations, and policies create, which in this case led profit-seekers to do great damage. Consider instead that the regulations that may have been the cause were supported by, as they have often been throughout US history, the very firms being regulated, mostly because they worked to said firms' benefit, even as they screwed the rest of us. Consider all of this as you ask for more of the same in the name of fixing the problem. And finally, consider why you would ever imagine that those with wealth and power wouldn't rig a new regulatory process in their favor.


One of the biggest confusions in the current mess is the claim that it is the result of greed. The problem with that explanation is that greed is always a feature of human interaction. It always has been. Why, all of a sudden, has greed produced so much harm? And why only in one sector of the economy? After all, isn't there plenty of greed elsewhere? Firms are indeed profit seekers. And they will seek after profit where the institutional incentives are such that profit is available. In a free market, firms profit by providing the goods that consumers want at prices they are willing to pay. (My friends, don't stop reading there even if you disagree - now you know how I feel when you claim this mess is a failure of free markets - at least finish this paragraph.) However, regulations and policies and even the rhetoric of powerful political actors can change the incentives to profit. Regulations can make it harder for firms to minimize their risk by requiring that they make loans to marginal borrowers. Government institutions can encourage banks to take on extra risk by offering an implicit government guarantee if those risks fail. Government policies can direct self-interest into activities that only serve corporate profits, not the public

[ACCT]

Originally Posted by septimine

I'm not talking about socialism -- I'm talking about Christians and private charities doing those kinds of things that we've ceded to the government. The government is only needed because nothing else is there. At least not on the scale required to replace the welfare programs. I don't think socialism is a good thing, but it came to be because the churches were not taking care of the poor.

There's sort of a false "religion" if you like around the government. The idea is of course that any time "the people" act, that it means government. It's not true. The government is a tool of the people, it is not the people. The people can use a different tool to fix these problems -- but unless we deal with the issues, I think we're going to create chaos by pulling the rug out from under the people stuck on welfare. It's not reasonable to replace welfare with nothing. We should replace welfare with a system of private and religious charities, but I don't think we should throw millions of welfare recipients out on the streets with no hope and no skills and no way to get what they need to survive.

The dollar is not on its death bed yet. The dollar will probably lose 50% of its purchasing power in the next 3 - 4 years. However, in the long-term the dollar is toast. At that point the government will give welfare recipients worthless paper dollars. People will ask for bread and they will get a stone.

[Dan Grelinger]

Originally Posted by epan

We need to solve the income distribution problem.

It is not possible. You might as well say "We need to rid the world of all human suffering". Isn't that a more laudable goal than just equal income distribution?

The reality is that this world is not Paradise. It was corrupted by original sin, and will always be corrupted by original sin until the end of the world. The poor will always be with us, and we will always be responsible for taking care of the poor. To be poor and to help the poor are key ways of obtaining heaven, which is the real goal.

Income distribution is not the problem. If it was, then Jesus would have railed on it. What he did rail on is that not everyone takes their responsibility to be charitable seriously.

[ACCT]

To all of those who want the government to help the poor, I have a one word answer, DEFAULT!

Default on the national debt is one answer that the politicians and financial alchemists in Europe and the United States don’t want to face up to yet: Default! Debt writedowns. Essentially, the same debt cleansing process we see happen in consumer and corporate bankruptcies all the time, only on a much bigger scale.

To keep pretending that European countries and the United States can afford to pay for stimulus programs, social welfare budget busters, and more by borrowing until kingdom come is absolute folly! Investors know this. So I believe they will apply increasing pressure to the one instrument that best represents the failed European and American socialist experiment — the currency itself!

The Euro is toast and in the long-term the dollar is toast. The philosophy of socialism is failure! We have built the failed global economy on the quicksands of pride. Our economy will never improve without the common sense that only comes from God. Friends, the best way that you help poor people is not to become poor yourself. Get as far as you can from this failed socialist government economy! Time is short! Do not waste time!

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by ACCT

Friends, the best way that you help poor people is not to become poor yourself.

Then I guess we will have to change the three Lenten disciplines into "prayer, fasting, and accumulating wealth".

[Captain America]

I really object to the heavy-handed politics in this post. POLITICS is not for this area of the website.

[Dan Grelinger]

Originally Posted by LeafByNiggle

Then I guess we will have to change the three Lenten disciplines into "prayer, fasting, and accumulating wealth".

Actually, the FIRST way to help the poor is to NOT be poor yourself.

Not being poor is different than accumulating wealth.

Prayer and fasting are very effective enablers for avoiding poverty, so there is no need to change the lenten disciplines, they already support the goals of not being poor.

[ACCT]

Originally Posted by Captain America

I really object to the heavy-handed politics in this post. POLITICS is not for this area of the website.

I think that you are mistaken to believe that politics is separate from God.

“Our Constitution puts politics under theology, democracy under God. But today, politics denies its divine foundation. Politics is today the supreme and absolute science. We once lived in the age of the Theological Man; then cam the age of the Economic Man; now we are in the age of the Political Man. The Theological Man lived for God; the Economic Man lived for profit; the Political Man lives for the State…So important has politics become, that now men judge religion by its attitude toward politics, rather than politics by its attitude toward religion(Bishop Sheen).”

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Many are looking to the past and are seeing parallels to the atmosphere forming in our own nations to what was lived in other nations before tyranny came to rule. Our Lady’s words today are words of warning. She says that the world is rejecting Her Son’s Sacrifice and renewing His sufferings with sin that goes on without repentance. Our Lady has told us we have no future without Jesus. Our Lady also has taught that it is good to reflect upon the mistakes of the past so that we can choose a better future for ourselves.

[LeafByNiggle]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

Actually, the FIRST way to help the poor is to NOT be poor yourself.

Not being poor is different than accumulating wealth.

Prayer and fasting are very effective enablers for avoiding poverty, so there is no need to change the lenten disciplines, they already support the goals of not being poor.

Apparently you are unaware that the third Lenten discipline is almsgiving.